Mr. Speaker, this morning the minister told the health committee “that a higher notion than science alone should guide science”. I agree with that.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt added that because of the moral and ethical dimensions of assisted human reproduction, he as a government member would welcome a free vote on relevant and related legislation.

Will the minister assure us that when the legislation comes to the House there will be a free vote?

Mr. Speaker, in response to questions that I asked him during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada did not rule out the possibility of having a single currency for the three Americas, within the next 10 years.

Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and, if so, how will Canada finally get involved in that important debate?

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Dodge—which is the same as that of his predecessor, Mr. Thiessen—is that he supports the Canadian dollar. He clearly explained why it is very important for us to keep our currency.

Mr. Speaker, I was there, and it was in response to my question that the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that he could see having a single currency for the three Americas, this within 10 years.

So, my question for the Minister of Finance is: Will he open up his mind a bit? Will he open up his mind to this new idea, which is really not new, because trade integration implies monetary integration?

Instead of making stupid comments like he did about Dorval, he should deal with the real issues.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should check the committee proceedings. This is not what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said. He did not advocate having a single currency within 10 years. He supported the Canadian dollar, and so does the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, brand name drug companies are routinely abusing the loopholes in the current patent legislation that allow an automatic two year extension of their market monopolies.

Everybody agrees that drug companies should have patent protection, but when patents expire generic drugs should be allowed on to the marketplace without costly court battles or needless bureaucratic delays. When will the industry minister close the loopholes that allow generic drugs to reach the market after patents have expired?

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the purpose of drug patent protection is there to protect intellectual property and should not be abused to expand protection beyond the period which is already prescribed.

I have said when appearing before a committee in the other place that we are quite prepared at an appropriate time to look at the regulations, the way in which they are working, to ensure that there is no abuse.

Mr. Speaker, that is really interesting. Canadians spent $15 billion on prescription drugs last year, the largest driver of our health care costs. Generic versions of drugs are not only safe alternatives but allow competition to set the price.

Brand name drugs are taking $186,000 per day out of the pockets of Canadians who can least afford it, the sick, seniors on fixed incomes. Will the industry minister fix this problem today? All it would take is a change in the regulation.

Mr. Speaker, first, I am very pleased the member opposite has noted that the legislation now before the House is legislation designed to bring us in compliance with the WTO ruling. We need to have that passed by the end of this session.

Second, he has noted that if there are issues to be addressed they can be addressed by regulation. I repeat, as I said a moment ago, in testifying to this bill I indicated this was a matter we were prepared to have a good look at.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development publicly expressed his concerns about the energy appetite of the Americans. To quote him “This worries us. We have many misgivings about northern drilling”.

Why has the Prime Minister concealed his concerns about the Americans' insatiable appetites? Why has he led us to believe that there was no problem and that his government was prepared to provide a positive response to their demand?

Ralph GoodaleLiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has consistently said that the expansion of energy markets in North America offers tremendous opportunity for Canadians in terms of business, jobs, growth, new investment and so forth.

At the same time he has always said that our principles of sustainable development will apply and that we put a high priority upon energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the development of renewable and alternative sources of energy. Those are values that are fundamentally important to Canadians and we will pursue them.

Mr. Speaker, referring to Monday's announcement of the new American energy plan coupled with Tuesday's announcement of their ABM defence plan, the secretary of state commented “Two things the same week is kind of threatening to us”.

Does the Prime Minister confirm the secretary of state's description of the U.S. government's announcements as threatening for the Canadian government and has he informed the president of the U.S. of our discomfort with his announcements?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this week held any surprises. According to the vice-president, the Americans had already indicated during the election campaign that they had a vision for energy. They explained this in their speech. We discussed the matter with the United States and Mexico in Quebec City.

Also, I do not believe there was much new in President Bush's speech. There was nothing new since the campaign.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a letter of interest. We have had opinions and advice from the industry.

Our officials are looking at those comments and very soon will be able to make public them and ask for a formal request for proposal. Therefore, when my colleague the Minister of National Defence and I announce that we will proceed with the acquisition of the new helicopter we will be on the right course.

We have a process. We went to the industry with a letter of interest. The industry gave us advice and we are looking at that advice. We will make our final position known. We will make a formal request for proposal so that we can have a very open and very transparent competition. We hope to achieve all that in the deadline we have imposed ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. At the finance committee on Tuesday the Governor of the Bank of Canada was musing about dollarization within 10 or 20 years.

The Minister of Finance has now said he is against the idea, despite the fact that David Dodge is his central banker, was his former deputy minister and has come up with this loonie idea, this loonie proposal of dollarization with the United States.

This is not government policy. I would like to know whether or not the Minister of Finance has instructed David Dodge to stop musing about dollarization since it is not government policy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was at the meeting. I have read the transcript. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that the arguments in favour of maintaining the Canadian dollar were overwhelming. That is what he said.

The newspaper report this morning also indicates that. That is the position of the governor and that is the position of the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, our dollar is a symbol of our sovereignty and our country. It is very important to Canadian people and very important to our existence as a nation. The former Governor of the Bank of Canada, Gordon Thiessen, recognized that when he said categorically that the idea of a common currency should be nipped in the bud.

The current governor is not quite as categorical when he talks about the dollar. If the minister really believes in the future of the Canadian dollar, will he take David Dodge out to the woodshed and nip this in the bud now?